Karnataka High Court
D H Moidu vs The Commissioner on 13 September, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REVIEW PETITION Nos.384/2017 & 385-390/2017
BETWEEN:
D.H. MOIDU
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O D.P. HUSSAINAR HAJEE
5TH BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR
VIRAJPET POST AND TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571218.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAVIKUMAR M.C. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
THE CITY MUNICIPALITY MADIKERI
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST
MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST
MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHESCOM, NEAR KSRTC DEPOT
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. DEVHADASS, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. K.S. ANUSUYADEVI, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV., FOR R2
SRI. PRABHAT A.P. ADV., FOR R3)
Date of Order 13-09-2017 R.P.Nos.384/2017 & 385-390/2017
D.H. Moidu Vs. The Commissioner & Ors.
2/5
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER
XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23-08-2017 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE Court IN W.P.No.27021/2017 & 29984-989/2017 (LB-
RES) BY RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 23-08-2017 AND
ADJUDICATE THE SAID WRIT PETITION ON MERITS.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr. Ravikumar M.C. Adv. for Petitioner Mr. N. Devhadass, Sr. Counsel for Mrs. K.S. Anusuyadevi, Adv. for R1 Mr. R. Nagendra Naik, Adv., for R2 Mr. Prabhat A.P. Adv., for R3
1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that it does not call for any review or recalling of the order passed by this Court on 23.08.2017 disposing of the writ petitions, imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner Mr.D.H.Moidu, on the ground of concealment of fact about the pendency of the civil suit, namely, O.S.No.37/2016 filed by the petitioner was made in the petition filed in this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.C.Ravikumar by producing the Order Sheets of Date of Order 13-09-2017 R.P.Nos.384/2017 & 385-390/2017 D.H. Moidu Vs. The Commissioner & Ors.
3/5 O.S.No.37/2016 now before this Court has been able to satisfy this Court that the said O.S.No.37/2016 actually stood dismissed for want of prosecution on 31.08.2016, but since the said fact was not within the knowledge of the learned counsel Mr.M.C.Ravikumar appearing and arguing before this Court on 23.08.2017, he could not bring these facts to the knowledge of this Court.
3. In these circumstances, it is observed that no blame can be laid at the doors of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.M.C.Ravikumar in this regard and it appears that on account of the non- furnishing of the complete, accurate and detailed information by the petitioner Mr.D.H.Moidu to his Counsel Mr.M.C.Ravikumar, he could not mention the said fact of filing of the said suit and its fate at the time of arguing this case on 23.08.2017. But fact remains that there was no mention of facts about filing of suit or its dismissal in the memo of present petitions filed on Date of Order 13-09-2017 R.P.Nos.384/2017 & 385-390/2017 D.H. Moidu Vs. The Commissioner & Ors.
4/5 01.09.2017 and the petitioner who was in full know of all these facts and the petitioner cannot be excused for not revealing these facts in the writ petition itself.
4. Since by the order dated 23.08.2017, the Respondents have been given an opportunity to proceed further against the petitioner's construction in accordance with law, the petitioner will have an opportunity to lead relevant evidence before the concerned authorities and also bring to their notice the relevant provisions of law, with which he can claim his construction to be in order and not otherwise. The Respondents-Authorities are expected to serve appropriate show-cause notice on the petitioner and provide him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
5. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification to recall or review of the order dated 23.08.2017. However, the costs imposed in that order Date of Order 13-09-2017 R.P.Nos.384/2017 & 385-390/2017 D.H. Moidu Vs. The Commissioner & Ors.
5/5 stands reduced to Rs.10,000/-. The Review Petitions are therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.